(Mishnah): A general rule was said about Sheviis (produce) - Anything that is specifically meant for human consumption, one may not make a bandage from it for a human and certainly not for an animal. Anything that is not specifically meant for human consumption, one may make a bandage from it for a human but not for an animal.

Anything that is not meant specifically for human or animal consumption, if he planned that it should be for human or animal consumption, they give it the stringencies of both. If he planned to use it as firewood, it is like firewood. Examples of this are savory, hyssop and thyme.

(Gemara) Question (R. Bun bar Chiya to R. Zeira): A general rule... etc. Animal food was mentioned in the Torah together with human food (as having the sanctity of Sheviis) - so why may only human food not be used for a human's bandage but animal food may be used?

Answer (R. Zeira): The pasuk states (Vayikra 25:6), "And (the produce of) the Shabbos of the land shall be yours to eat for you'' - this is an exclusion that human food may not be used to make a bandage.

Question: Why not also expound that animal food may not be used?

Answer (R. Bun bar Chiya): You may not explain a pasuk in a way that contradicts another pasuk's explanation. (Since we've already used that pasuk to teach that there is only a prohibition to use human food for a bandage, this explanation would contradict that.)

(R. Yosi disagreeing with R. Zeira): The pasuk states (Vayikra 25:6), "And (the produce of) the Shabbos of the land shall be yours to eat for you, (your slave and your maidservant)'' - ('to eat') excludes (making a bandage) and 'for you, your slave and your maidservant...(And all of its produce may be eaten (also) etc.)'' - 'May be eaten' - is another exclusion, and the rule is that two consecutive exclusions come to include , and teach that one may not make a bandage from human food.

Question: (So the question returns) - why not also include animal food?

Answer: As R. Bun bar Chiya said - You may not explain a pasuk in a way that contradicts another pasuk's explanation.

(R. Matanya): Rather, the Torah comes to permit a bandage - when it made an exclusion, it did so for human food and when it made an exclusion, it did so for animal food.

Question: May one make dyes for humans using animal food?

Answer: If human food, that may not be used for a bandage, may be used for dye for humans; animal food, that may be used for a bandage, may certainly be used to make dye for humans!

Question: Grasses (used for medicinal purposes) - may they be used to make dye for humans?

Answer: If human food, that may not be used for a bandage, may be used for dye for humans; grasses, that may be used for a bandage, may certainly be used to make dye for humans!

These questions were not necessary - however, another question must be asked - may one use human food to make dye for animals?

Answer: Just as you said that human food, that may not be used for a bandage, may be used to make dye for humans,; so too animal food, that may not be used to make a bandage for an animal, should be permitted to use for dye for an animal.

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): Animal food cannot be compared to human food - why may human food be used for dye for humans? Because dyes of humans retain the sanctity of Sheviis (since they are considered an important use for man), which is not the case with animal food.

Question: (The Mishnah taught (above 29-1(b)) that anything that is not meant specifically for human or animal consumption, if he planned that it should be for human or animal consumption, they give it the stringencies of both.) A stringency of human food is understood (that it may not be used for a bandage), but what's a stringency in animal food over human food?

Answer: (Once he decides to use them as animal food) he may not boil them (if they are eaten raw).

Baraisa: If the seller was selling them to be eaten and the buyer bought them as firewood, the thoughts of the buyer are irrelevant. And certainly if the seller sold them as food and the buyer also bought them as food and then decided to use them as firewood, the buyer's thoughts are irrelevant.

Question: If the seller sold them for firewood and the buyer bought them as food and then decided to use them as firewood, what's the law?

What's the case? If the buyer first gave the money (intending to use them as food) and (decided to use them as firewood and then) took them, he gave the seller payment without the sanctity of Sheviis (since the acquisition only happened at the time when he took them). If the buyer first took them (intending to use them as food) and (decided to use them as firewood and then) paid the money, he gave the seller payment for food (with the sanctity of Sheviis).

Rather, he gave the money (intending to use them as food) and (decided to use them as firewood and then) took them - and it depends on a disagreement between R. Yochanan and R. Shimon ben Lakish...

According to R. Yochanan who says that on a Torah level, the money makes the acquisition, he gave him payment for food; according to R. Shimon ben Lakish who says that that on a Torah level, the money does not make the acquisition, he gave him payment for firewood.

Question: If the seller wished to sell them for firewood (as he didn't want to receive Sheviis money) but the buyer would only buy them as food, there's no sale as they did not come to an agreement. If they later made the deal without specifying their intended use, what is the status of the produce?

Answer (Baraisa): (If a buyer and seller didn't agree on a price and they later made the transaction without mentioning the price) if it was the seller that had approached the buyer to close the deal, we follow the price that was originally set by the buyer (as we can assume that the seller acquiesced). If the buyer approached the seller, we follow the price of the seller. And the same rules should apply here.